Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Pope Francis offers a small olive branch to those of little faith

If there’s an afterlife with a gatekeeper, that gatekeeper won't be concerned with what you thought, but with what you did.

Were you kind? Were you generous? Were you loyal? Were you honest? Were you fair?

Not always, of course. You were human. But when you fell short, did you accept responsibility and learn from your mistakes?

Did you use your talents wisely and leave the world a better place as you passed through?

Simply believing in these virtues and in a particular divinity that promulgates them is not only insufficient to enter heaven, but also unnecessary.

If a creator of the universe exists and cares about individual lives on Earth, I believe that creator is exclusively concerned with how we treat his creation and supremely unconcerned about which God or gods we thank and praise for the opportunity

I believe that religious claims to the contrary — unless you believe as we do, you are doomed to a dismal eternity, at best — are based not on exclusive knowledge but on institutional requirements for conformity, discipline and control.

After all, why choose one faith over another if they’re each rooted simply in best guesses about life’s mysteries made by meaning-seeking mortals?

Which is what I also believe.

And which brings me to what Pope Francis has had to say about atheists.

Quite a bit has been made recently about his conciliatory tone in addressing the so-called “pelvic zone” issues of homosexuality, abortion and contraception. Not that he was signaling a change in Catholic teaching, but a shift in emphasis from Rome and a cooling of the rhetoric.

But I’m just as struck by the pontiff’s decidedly unsulferous words about those who don’t share his faith.

“I would … classify as arrogant those theologies that not only attempted to define with certainty and exactness God’s attributes, but also had the pretense of saying who he was,” he wrote in a 2010 book titled “On Heaven and Earth.”

At a Mass in May, Francis said “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone. ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”

To be sure, in Christianity, redemption is an opportunity for salvation, not a synonym for it. Francis wasn’t breaking new theological ground.

Nor was it exactly revolutionary when he wrote that “God’s mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart,” in a lengthy letter to La Repubblica, an Italian newspaper, earlier this month.

“The issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience,” reads the paper’s English translation.“In fact, listening (to) and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil.”

Say it fast and it almost sounds equivalent to my spiritual outlook, which I describe as indifferent agnosticism.

I don’t know if God exists and I don’t care. Whether we were made by an all-powerful, all-loving creator or are the random result of a cosmic science experiment, it doesn’t change one bit our fundamental obligations to one another and to the world we live in.

Whether we are utterly extinguished at death or if our souls live on in another dimension, it’s preposterous to me — utterly inconsistent with the concept of mercy — that our fate would hinge on our adherence to dogma and ritual practices.

Pope Francis is not with me there at all. Without a claim to the urgent and exclusive truth, his institution, like every major faith, would fade into a network of Unitarian-style communities of uplift emphasizing humanistic morality and whatever theology.

In a recent, far less publicized encyclical, he argued that those who fall on my side of the age-old debate about whether deeds alone are a ticket to heaven will inevitably find that “their lives are futile and their works barren” without a focus on God.

But his emphasis on conscience and his focus on dialogue and coexistence with the unchurched rather than condemnation are refreshing nevertheless.

The world would be a much better place if other religious leaders followed his lead.

That I also believe.

Read long excerpts from the letter, the encyclical and the interview here.

Didn't you see the Cardinal's comments? All this stuff the Pope is saying is no big deal, doesn't change anything, and all that agitating the Cardinal was doing against gay marriage and gays generally was OK because that is what poeple are interested in. The Cardinal was right to have been doing that, no matter what some guy in Rome says, what does he know anyway, they didn't even pick an Italian for that job, it was some guy from Argentina nobody had ever heard of.

Doesn't change anything. Still OK to dump on gays and make a big issue of it all the time. Mercy my ---.

“The issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience,” reads the paper’s English translation.“In fact, listening (to) and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil.”

Eric - Just curious...do you ever say anything critical about Judaism? You are very critical of Catholicism. Are you just as critical of Judaism, or is that religion not as bad as Catholicism?

ZORN REPLY -- I'm critical here not of Catholicism or Christianity as such, but of any belief system that claims a monopoly on important truth. I very rarely discuss Catholicism on this blog as I don't feel it's my business to adjudicate the rules of clubs to which I don't belong.

"I still don't understand why non-Catholics get in a tizzy about what the Pope says."

Because. for better or for worse, Catholicism is the single largest religious denomination in the United States and the world, and it has had and continues to have an influence on culture, politics and law, both inside and outside the US.That you couldn't surmise this yourself should tell you that you don't understand some very obvious features of culture and society. You should be more cautious in expressing opinions on subjects you don't understand.

An atheist saved ? So many will answer no, and so many will answer yes, but the truth is only God knows. Those who reject God are those who believe God exists but sin against God and His Will. Everyone has the opportunity of eternal life.In the end only God can know our hearts and minds our conscience and it is He who will judge..

I feel sorry for the rest of you who don't have the "Baptist Express" card which not only guarantees direct entry into heaven but can also be used to earn "blessing points" which have no expiration date and can be redeemed eternally. One of the benefits is a free upgrade to a higher level of Heaven that will bring you closer to the Creator. You also have your own "Angel Associate" who can automatically handle mundane matters like getting your halo cleaned or your white robe washed and starched. Top cardholders get their own patch of paradise on which to erect a heavenly mansion and special invites to events where you can meet Number One himself.

All joking aside, I think that we are responsible to God for the knowledge we have of him. And so, I expect to find all sorts of different people in heaven. God is very grubby in terms of those who meet favor in his eyes.

Just came out last week, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but after attending for 14 years I have a good grasp of the theme. Christianity (and most other major religions) view doubt as a weakness of one's faith. Deeper study and honest reflection reveal the opposite, that faith may be strengthened when beliefs are questioned and wrestled with. This is not a recipe for faith--human choice is the main factor in determining the outcome.

Put simply, it's ok to ask questions; it's ok to have doubts. What matters is whether a person is willing to be honest, e.g. Job, or chooses to hide behind religious edicts, platitudes and façades, e.g. Job's friends. This is the sense I get from the Pope's recent remarks, that it's ok talk about questions that really don't have answers, and we can listen to people's questions without insisting "we" have all the correct answers.

The conflict here is in the teaching that, belief in Jesus and Baptism are necessary for salvation:" the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

The teaching of the Catholic church is also that those outside of our faith, who "through no fault of their own" do not know Jesus, but in their lives pursue their moral compass and in effect "seek Christ" without knowing it, can achieve salvation. To not believe God exists is not the same as rejecting God. . A knowing rejection of God would be to sin, reject being in the state of grace, denying God's will.

Everyone has the opportunity of eternal life .In the end only God can know our hearts and minds our conscience and it is HE who will decide our fate.

--"This is the sense I get from the Pope's recent remarks, that it's ok talk about questions that really don't have answers, and we can listen to people's questions without insisting "we" have all the correct answers."

My take is the Pope is saying it's ok to have doubts, questions and different views, and it's not the role of the Church to judge/condemn others. Judgement is the purview of God.

I personally like most of Eric's postings about religion. They often touch on the very things that I have always had questions about. There's the point that another way to salvation is to be a sinner and then repent and accept God. So, that is somehow more acceptable and more important than the person who didn't commit any mortal sins and lived a basically good life and believed his whole life in God? The repentant sinner, like the prostitute for example, is more important, like a lost sheep, than those who do good works for most of their lives. I realize that it could be a way to provide hope to those who've done awful things, but it's like a " Get away with murder scot-free" card.

For me, the big change came when I had kids. I didn't need to know the answer to every single question. My doubts were there, but could just remain. The conflicts did not all need to be resolved NOW. I still question and struggle with some big things in Christianity, but the overwhelming emotion of gratefulness and belief that there is a definite higher power made me less of a doubter. Obviously, this is not something unique to me, it's a maturity and experience situation. As people age, the tend to see things with more gray area.

The Pope can continue to reach out and be as inclusive as possible and it will likely benefit all Christian churches. I see no down side to that from my point of view.

@ Richard Monahan.... THanks for your encouragement about going to Al Anon from earlier this year.. All this talking about God makes me think about trusting my higher power.

"If one has the answers to all the questions: that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble."

"Without a claim to the urgent and exclusive truth, his institution, like every major faith, would fade into a network of Unitarian-style communities of uplift emphasizing humanistic morality and whatever theology."

The church is the biggest business of all big business. It will not go down without a theological fight.

That's really when my epiphany came too. I held my first-born in my arms and knew I could not love anyone more fully and deeply than I did at that moment. And slowly, over coming days, I recalled the passages from the Gospels about how much more God loves his children.

And that was it, for me.

Zorn states: "But his emphasis on conscience and his focus on dialogue and coexistence...rather than condemnation are refreshing...the world would be a much better place if other religious leaders followed his lead."

And how much better place the world would be if more of Francis' flock followed his lead, too.

"Whether we are utterly extinguished at death or if our souls live on in another dimension, it’s preposterous to me — utterly inconsistent with the concept of mercy — that our fate would hinge on our adherence to dogma and ritual practices."

Interesting and I know I'm coming late to the party. what about Reincarnation? Atoms and molecules combine to make things and once those things get destroyed, the atoms become something else. A tree gets cut and becomes a piece of furniture. Perhaps that furniture gets burned in a house fire. That wood becomes charred carbon, with some atoms being released into the atmosphere. Do these atoms ever become a tree again?

I find it rather wasteful that we don't reincarnate in some way. Not just our bodies but whatever this spirit or soul thing is. I mean does that mean a pyramid builder from whatever year BC doesn't somehow get recycled as a plumber in 1932? Or a programmer in 2002? It just kinda seems sad that our life experience doesn't get reused or that we only get some slight sliver of time that doesn't even register on the Cosmic Scale.

There is no god(s). All religions are false and immoral. Many religions do good works for others and those same deeds could be done without the invisible man in the sky getting the credit. As for every other aspect of faith, it is wrong to ignore truth as we best know it now.

If you are a believer, you should watch Youtube of Christopher Hitchens. He could humiliate any debater of his who backed belief. Watch him annihilate gasbag, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. As Christopher would say, it is wrong to believe in an afterlife because it then supercedes this actual real life we all have now. It's what causes people to fly airplanes into buildings. It's what causes religions to tell everyone else (even their non-adherents) who they can and cannot sleep with and what contraception devices they cannot use, thereby causing death and wasted lives. "Hate the sin, love the sinner." really? Put another way, Hate the rape, love the rapist." That's what a believer must believe if they say that dumb expression.

If I could get a believer to just admit eternal life of any sort would be awful. I mean the first 3million years laying at your Lord's feet might be a kick, but forever? Horrors! Give me death when it is my time to exit this wonderful world. It's just like the "eternity" I experienced before I was born. Why is that non-existence in death so scary to the faithful? Gladly, there is no Heaven. Sadly, there is also no hell. I wish a lot of the truly evil people could get what's coming to them in a Creepy Mormon hell dream. (Book of Mormon song.) Namely, that father in Austria who dungeoned his own daughter for 30 years and a couple of Illinois politicians.

Trying to describe eternal life to mortals is like trying to describe the colors of the rainbow to someone born blind. It's just beyond our ability to comprehend it. On the other hand, it's all too easy to understand Hell. That's why I've always preferred Dante's Inferno to his books on purgatory and heaven.

@Richard Monahan: Well, I am sort of forced into it. Were I to testify in court I have to swear on a Bible. Think a jury wouldn't hold it agaisnt someone if they refused? I have to read it on my money on every piece of currency. I have to recite it in the Pledge of Allegience. I have to "respect" every religious person's unprovable beliefs. I have to listen to a prayer before an auto race and in the 7th inning with God Bless America. Texas, who prints most textbooks for American schools slants creationism in their science texts. The believers are trying to get creationism in science classrooms. As one comedian said; I think teaching creationism in science class should be done. Explaining it would take about five minutes leaving the remaining 40 minutes for laughter.

I suspect you think you just explained heaven to me by claiming heaven is unexplainable. Can a person believe something to be true and not have any idea what it is they are talking about? THAT takes religion!

If the Bible is to be believed, the words and actions of Christ himself belie the idea that faith in the death, resurrection and deity of Jesus is necessary for salvation.

The Gospel of Luke tells the story of Jesus and the "sinful woman". (Luke 7:36-50) After the woman lovingly washed Jesus' feet He told her that her "faith" had saved her. (Luke 7:50) But her faith in what? She couldn't have believed, i.e. "had faith", that Jesus died for her sins and was resurrected -- Jesus hadn't yet been crucified. So what did she have faith in that forgave her sins? While we don't know everything that was in her heart, we do know what Jesus found in her heart that was worth mentioning: "Great love." (Luke 7:47) And He expressly tied that demonstrated love to the forgiveness of sins. (Luke 7:48) Maybe salvation requires more than sinners redeeming themselves by acting in a loving manner, but Jesus didn't seem to think so.

You can see a similar case in Luke's account of the crucifixion and the penitent thief. (Luke 23:39-43)

@MrJM - If you're referring to children; they are born with the ability to gain understanding equivalent to their 'creator'. I don't think any religious person would argue that a human can gain equal understanding of their 'god' during this lifetime, or perhaps even afterward.

@ MrJM: Your quoting the Bible reminds me of another reason why belief is not just wrong, but corrupting. The idea that anyone's crimes (or sins) can be forgiven by a third party is immoral. If I knew and liked you well, and you stole some money, I could pay back the person you stole from. If you did something that got you thrown in jail, there were times when I could have served your sentence. But no matter how much I liked you and tried, I could never take those bad things you did away from your personal responsibility. And the same goes for a deity. It's immoral to believe anything could wash those deeds away as if they never happened. Believers believe that a baby must be baptized. Why do they believe this? They say because if the baby should die unexpectedly (likely by His hands, btw) then the baby will be saved. Can you honestly tell me you believe a baby is a sinner? I thinik I'm far more moral than a religious person. A believer does good because they think the man up there is watching and keeping score. I try to do good because it is societies well rehearsed rules that dictate I do. No reward is needed for me to try to be good to others.

BTW, why are believers so accepting of the idea a man is nailed to a cross for a weekend and that absolves every sin ever committed or that will be committed? That wasn't that much torture and pain. For one, two other people flanked Jesus on those crosses. How come they don't get any credit for washing you of your sins? Secondly, that poor daughter of her monster dad in Austria lived in fear and torture in a dungeon for almost 30 years. She suffered far more than your Jesus did. Jesus had a bad weekend, big deal.

Lastly, why don't Christians follow the Ten Commandments they so much want to put in court houses and schools? Every Christian breaks the first commandment. As you know, it is , Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Um, the 10 commandments were in the Old Testament. The GOD in that book said, NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. Yet, along comes 'chapter II', and that gets swallowed up in triune god nonsense. Jesus is god, but they celebrate his birth and death every year. Well, was Jesus born, or not? Did he die? If not, then he didn't really die for your sins. If he was ressurrected, then he didn't die and renegged on his promise. Catholics break that first commandment more than a Protestant. They pray to Mary and have graven images of her everywhere. They also pray to saints. They believe their pope is holy and infalible. What part of the Old testament god does a Catholic not understand No Other Gods Before Me?

@Barry3 Read my post of 11:36 to see a few examples of why I care what believers believe. I can add many more if you like.

OK, here's one; I hate the airport experience we all endure in the name of "keeping us safe." All the rules, lines, removal of belts and shoes sure doesn't scream; land of the free, home of the brave. Why must I endure this search? Because some believers thought they were riding an express plane to 72 virgins. Religion/belief brought those NY towers and 4 planes down. If it wasn't belief, then those terrorist made a very bad career move. That is another reason why "I care what others believe." I care in the same way if some nutjob wants to tell me 9/11 was an inside job. I will not let nonsense lke that go unchallenged.

Well done, Eric. These are, though, still baby steps by the leader of the Catholic Church. I'll be more impressed when he proclaims that birth control is a good thing, which would really go a long way to getting Catholicism out of the dark ages.

And just a few other random thoughts about religion and the possible existence of a greater power:

(1) It offends me when people assume that belief in a deity assumes morality. Some of the kindest people in the world that I know do not believe in god. And some of the greediest and nastiest people I know are regular church goers.

(2) And a great quote from Marcus Aurelius: "If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on their virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

If I understand you correctly, then heaven is an obvious lie because we cannot explain it. Hmmm...then give me an answer to the question "why is there something instead of nothing?". I doubt that you'll come up with an answer that explains it all.

ZORN REPLY -- In that question, David, "God" is simply an attempt to insert a bottom onto a bottomless riddle.

Some religions do have detailed roadmaps not just to heaven but to all sorts of things. For example, Blackwell who is a card carrying member of the religious right is sure that God wants us to cut aid to the poor because it makes them too dependent upon government. As long as they do not compel me to believe as they do, I leave them in God's hands. However, that's the problem when they try to use God to justify partisan political policies.

I read this blog occasionally. I've seen you both express your views on many subjects with intelligence. Today's column was a subject in which I admit a rock solid viewpoint, but always willing to listen to contrary proof. I asked a few religious questions and received no answers, but instead received return questions. That's ok if we agree that since I cannot answer the unanswerable, it does not follow that you therefore win any debate points. I have blogged elsewhere on this subject and universally every believer responds to me just as you both did; respectful, but completely dodging any specific questions I proposed on faith. Sorry to end on a mildly snarky comment. Or was it?

Your challenges to the faithful have been misdirected at me. The question, "How can you believe this thing that you don't believe?" doesn't make sense. If directed at me, your questions make as little sense, so I've made no attempt to answer them.

But I do know that most of the "faithful" regular commenters have repeatedly addressed very similar questions almost every time the topic of religion comes up. I don't find their answers terribly compelling, but the better thinkers usually manage to offer answers that they find satisfying and that I find internally consistent. When discussing this topic, that is a triumph.

In much the same way, the usual tired collection of counter-questions is directed at the non-believers. Again, the cliched questions are met with rote answers. (Most of us first encountered this ages-old duel in a college dorm room. At that time, I'd have been on the other side of the argument.) I reference the Bible because the Christians with whom I disagree believe in it, not because I do.

In any event, I've yet to see anyone on this blog change his or her mind on this matter based on anything written by anyone else on this blog. I think it would be very surprising if it were otherwise.

"At heaven’s door, St. Peter is probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor.” - And big gov't just keeps them poor as 50 years of a war on poverty has proven.

Phantom,

I don't like what some nuts have done in the name of Islam, but don't confuse the religion with a few idiots.

Are these items really FORCED on you?

"Were I to testify in court I have to swear on a Bible. Think a jury wouldn't hold it agaisnt someone if they refused?" - No

"I have to read it on my money on every piece of currency." - I know its there, but I can't remember the last time I read it. And does the word "God" really offend you?

"I have to recite it in the Pledge of Allegience." - Where do YOU have to recite the pledge?

"I have to "respect" every religious person's unprovable beliefs." - Give an example where you have to respect someone's religious beliefs.

"I have to listen to a prayer before an auto race and in the 7th inning with God Bless America." - Ever hear of headphones or the mute button?

"Texas, who prints most textbooks for American schools slants creationism in their science texts. The believers are trying to get creationism in science classrooms. As one comedian said; I think teaching creationism in science class should be done. Explaining it would take about five minutes leaving the remaining 40 minutes for laughter." - How many Texas science books are you reading?

All we did was to say that we did not have an answer to your question. In fact, our scriptures say that the good things God has planned for us are beyond even our ability to imagine them. We weren't trying to score points but to give you our best understanding of the issue. Given that there are questions which are not religious in nature but still have no good answers, I see no shame in admitting that we simply don't know. I can live with that.

Eric quote: "...it doesn't change one bit our fundamental obligations to one another and to the world we live in." I would recommend C.S. Lewis "Mere Christianity" for some interesting thoughts on human morals and an argument about where they might originate.

I was late to reading today’s trib and Eric’s column and the followup comments in the change of subject, but am very appreciative of the thoughtful interchanges above. I would like to call an emphasis to Eric’s concluding challenge “his (Francis) focus on dialogue and coexistence with the unchurched rather than condemnation are refreshing nevertheless. The world would be a better place if other religious leaders followed his lead”.

I am not a “religious leader”, but as Eric knows, my job is leading student-athletes in a religious institution, so if you stretch the definition, I would qualify. For a very long time I have appreciated all the various Zorn columns for their efforts to stimulate DIALOGUE among disagreeing parties, as it seems such a rarity in our culture. However, for a topic of this magnitude, I find written interchange to be much too inadequate for true dialogue to take place. I would truly value the opportunity to discuss personally with any of you, Eric, MrJM, David, Richard, phantom, etc. what you and I believe we know about Christianity, the afterlife, redemption or the like.

I know our emails are not published here with our names, so if you would like to take me up on my offer to dialogue verbally, you can find my contact info in the swim team section of the Wheaton College (IL) website.

"God's got a funny way of expressing Godself.
(At least I call God 'God.' You might somethin' else.)
So when God calls me up, gives me a 'hey,'
I answer back in my own way... I say...

"'Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?'
Yeah, that's how I answer back.
'Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?'
Then I listen. God answers back. Listen now!

"God got stuck on the words of this song God wrote,
Couldn't get it out of God's head.
You know the one where everyone blows it
'n in the end, we all end up dead.

"So God calls—wants a more upbeat ending—
For the orphan, the widow, the least.
Well if God's the 'Good Word' that makes me 'The Great Edit,'
'Cuz in the end now we all get released! Hallelujah!

"To my utter dismay God loves this new ending...
'Now it's alive! It's got blood!'
With family ties, one of whom dies
At the hands of those violent thugs.

"So that's how we get here this evening
And that's how we'll get to the end.
It's comin' right up right after this verse,
Now's your chance—go speed-dial your friends.
[harp instrumental]

"A new team's been assembled and they're GOOD.
They're writing even as we speak...
You won't want to miss this, go gather the misses.
Follow for Updates and Tweets.

"Can't say more now 'cuz I don't know more.
Just be ready to jump with both feet.
'Cuz that's how God plays
'n that's how you pays...
This transaction's almost complete!

"Oh, I know, I know, you like numbers—
Proof, receipts, gate, take.
Well as far as I knows, as far as that goes...
You're worth more RIGHT NOW! than you'll ever make.

"Just don't get trapped by the words of a song rote.
'Cuz one dáy one got stuck in your head.
Even if, even tho (as the new ending goes),
Nobody now ends up dead.

"'Cuz God's got a funny way of expressing Godself
(At least I call God 'God.' You might call God 'Ralph.')
So when God calls me up— gives me a 'hey,'
I answer back in my own way... I say...

"'Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?'
Yeah, that's how I answered back.
'Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?'
Then I listen... (God really does answer back)...
[harmonica chuggin'...]

"Are you talkin' to me?"
"YEAH, I'M TALKIN' TO THEE!
ARE YOU PLANTIN' MY SEED?
ARE YOU FEELIN' MY NEED?
WHO'S GONNA' FEED THE LITTLE BIRDIES?"

Eric and other skeptics would probably make the case that altruism is built into us through evolution. By helping one another we increase the probability that our genes will survive. I think that to some degree it's a non-answer because you can always posit that evolution was responsible for this or that much like people have used the word "God" when they couldn't explain some phenomenon.

ZORN REPLY -- Of course. Much if not all of human morality is internally and inherently self generated -- obvious from a thoughtful study of the requirements of living in a peaceful, civil society.
You can say that the reason we don't kill one another freely and steal and sleep randomly with one another's spouses is because God says it's wrong, but it's objectively disruptive to society to allow such things and biologically harmful. You can say God made it that way or God gave us the reason to figure that out, and I certainly can't gainsay you, but you can't, I don't think, say that there's no way to have a moral code or a moral sense without consulting God.
Indeed "God" has told people many different things throughout time, and if the Bible is to be believed has even facilitated and encouraged the most dreadful and heinous of genocides.

I do not have to use the word "God" to refer to the so-called "first cause" from which all else comes. However, the alternative seems to be to embrace an infinite series of regressions. What's the alternative to a "first cause"? I'm not being sarcastic but I've never gotten a good answer from skeptics. In fact, I recently read an article in Skeptics magazine which suggest that skeptics may never have a good answer for the question why is there something instead of nothing.

By the way, I'm surprised that you seem to think that I might deny that one can have a moral code or sense apart from God. I think I've written more than a few times that one does not need God for morality and have even used you as an example of that. Now whether one can establish an effective morality for a society without reference to God is a practical question which I think may have an undesirable answer for skeptics. However, it's not an idle question. As our society rejects the influence of religion, we'd better come up with a different basis for morality. Shermer's book on the science of good and evil is a good read on that point.

Why would man come up with ( internally or inherently self generated as you say ) a morality code - like not killing one another, stealing, or not sleeping with other spouses - that he could not live up to? Would not man left to his own build a morality code in which he could do what he wants and then sleep at night?

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.